Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 20,261 of 6th September 2019

By means of a decree of the 12th August, 2019, of the Rent Regulation Board, in the records of the Application in the names Martin Maersk Suenson et vs Emanuel Ciantar, Application Number 58/2019SG, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent Emanuel Ciantar in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).

By means of a Sworn Application in the names Martin Maersk Suenson (ID 202893A) and for any interet she may have Gwennaelle Pirlet (ID 204050A) vs Emanuel Ciantar filed before the Rent Regulation Board on the 28th March, 2019, the applicants Martin Maersk Suenson (ID 202893A) and for any interest she may have Gennaelle Pirlet (ID 204050A) request with respect and Martin Maersk Suenson (ID 202893A) confirmed on oath:

That by means of a private writing dated 26th March, 2018, (Doc. A) the respondent rented out to the applicants the fourth floor of the building named Le Jardin in Triq il-Kanonku G. Gatt Said, RabatRBT 2101, Malta, consisting of two apartments, a terrace and access to part of the roof of the same building, as well as two parking spaces in the underlying garage, and this towards the rent of €900 monthly for the large apartment, towards the rent of €400 monthly for the small apartment and €140 montly for the stated two parking spaces;

That as results from the same private writing dated 26th March, 2018, (Doc. A) the applicant had given a deposit of €1300 to the respondent which deposit, saving what was agreed in the same private writing (Doc. A), had to be reimbursed to the applicant at the end of the lease;

That the above lease came to an end prematurely on the 30th July, 2018, and this due to the sole fault of the respondent;

That although duly requested to refund the sum of €1137.63 as the balance of the deposit paid (i.e. after deducting the amount of €162.37) for rental of water meter and electricity and charges for using the same basis of the readings made on the 31st July, 2018, and even to pay the damages he caused, the respondent instead offered to pay only a petty part of the deposit and this according to him in settlement of all applicant's claims since according to respondent, the applicants had damaged the property in question, which offer has not been accepted by the applicants since it is not true that applicants damaged the property rented out to them;

This is why this cause has been instituted.

Thus, applicants respectfully request that if pleases this Board to:

1. Declare, if necessary with the assistance of appointed experts, that the sum of €1137.63 as the balance of the original deposit paid to the respondent on the signing of the lease agreement (Doc. A) which, as previously explained, should be refunded by the respondent to the applicants;

2. Declare, if necessary with the assistance of appointed experts, that the applicant suffered damages because of the premature termination of the lease, for which damages the respondent is solely responsible;

3. Liquidate such damages suffered and are being sustained by the applicants, if necessary with the appointment of referees;

4. Condemn respondent to pay applicants the sum of €1137.63 as the balance of the original deposit paid to the respondent on the signing of the lease agreement (Doc. A) which as explained above, should be refunded by the respondent to the applicants;

5. Condemn respondent to pay the applicants that amount so liquidated by way of damages in virtue of the previous claims.

With costs and interest against the respondent, as from now summoned for reference to his oath and reserving all rights competent to plaintiff for further damages.

Applicants: 42, Triq Wied Mejxu, Ibraġ, Swieqi

Respondent: Le Jardin, Triq il-Kanonku G. Gatt Said, Rabat RBT2101

The application in the names Martin Maersk Suenson et vs Emanuel Ciantar, Application Number 58/2019SG, has been postponed for hearing to the 16th September, 2019, at 9.00 a.m.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the Court of Appeal on the 18th July, 2019, in the records of the Application in the names M.I.D.C. Ltd (C 282) vs Malta and Europe Hotels Ltd (C 422) , Application Number 1148/2013 JZM, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent John Zammit, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an Application filed in the Court of Appeal, Application Number 1148/2013 JZM, in the names M.I.D.C. Limited (C 282) vs Malta & Europe Hotels Limited (C 422) John Zammit and Michele Martone and Massimiliano Martone, represented by their special mandatary Advocate Doctor Mario de Marco;

And

By decree of the 9th July, 2014, Advocate Dr Anthony Stellini LLD and Legal Procurator Mario Buttigieg as deputy curators to represent the absent Massimiliano Martone;

And

By decree of the 9th March, 2015, the deputy curators Advocate Dr Anthony Stellini LLD and Legal Procurator Mario Buttigieg were substituted with deputy curators Dr Mark A. Mifsud Cutajar and Procurator Marie Claire Bartolo;

And

By decree given on the 19th November, 2015, the decree given on the 9th March, 2015, was revoked contrario imperio;

And

By decree given on the 19th November, 2015, the words 'represented by the special mandatary Advocate Doctor Mario de Marco' were cancelled;

And

By decree given on the 11th July, 2017, it was ordered that the records of the cause pass on to the person of Massimiliano, Annabella, Luigi and Franco siblings Martone in order to continue the cause as defendants instead of their father the defendant Michele Martone who died during the proceedings, the Appeal application of Massimiliano Martone in his own name and the same Massimiliano, Annabella, Luigi and Franco siblings Martone, in whose name the records of the cause were transfered after the death of their father humbly pleaded:

Preliminary

1.1 That by means of the original sworn application the plaintiff company (later on called the respondent company) in its position of shareholder of the defendant company Malta & Europe Hotels Limited, further on called 'MEHL', asked for a declaration that the sale, transfer and registration of one share in the company MEHL by John Zammit to Massimiliano Martone and subsequently the transfer and registration of this one share in the name of Massimiliano Martone are null and without any legal effect and asked the Court to order that MEHL, erase and cancel the registration of this single share in the name of Michele Martone and subsequently in the name of Massimiliano Martone and in order that deputy curators be appointed in case of the eventual default of the parties.

… omissis …

1.4. That by means of a minute of the hearing of the 3rd October, 2017, before the First Hall Civil Court (later on called the Court of First Instance) it was agreed that a partial judgement be given limitedly as regards the pleas of lack of juridical interest and regarding the plea of res judicata before it passes on to consider the merit if it be the case.

… omissis …

1.6. That by means of a decree given by the First Court on the 26th February, 2018, on the request of the interpellant, the First Court gave a special permission to the applicant to file an appeal from the partiual judgement given on the 30th January, 2018;

2. The Grievances

The interpellants felt aggrieved by the partial judgement given in the names premised and by the Honourable First Court and are humbly filing this appeal therefrom.

2.1. The First Grievance - The Juridical Interest

2.1.1. That the interpellant in the second plea of their sworn application pleaded that the respondent company does not have the necessary juridical interest to bring forward the present cause.

2.1.4 The legal parametres being established the factual background which gave rise to this cause shall be pointed out. The respondent company is basing its present cause and its juridical interest by alleging that it is a shareholder of the company MEHL. What results from the judgements exhibited by the interpellant is … omissis … that the respondent company never acquired shares in MEHL, except when as an effect of the judgement given by the Superior Court of Appeal, the respondent company was considered a shareholder in the company MEHL, on the 31st July, 1996, which was registered in its register of shareholders.

2.1.5. The date of such registration was the punctum temporis from which there emerged or could emerge rights as regards the respondent company and not before.

… omissis …

2.1.8 From the point of view of the Memorandum of the company MEHL reference is made to Article 6 subsection 2 of the Articles of Association whereby the procedure for the transfer of shares is established.

… omissis …

2.1.10 That from the premised it is unequivocal that a person is considered to be a shareholder for the purposes of the Company Law and both for the purposes of the Memorandum of the company MEHL, when it is written down in the register of members as observed by the First Court in its appealed judgement … omissis … Once there is no contestation that it was recognised as a shareholder on the 31st July, 1996, it means that before that date it was not a shareholder. This means that there was never a valid transfer of shares in favour of the respondent company before the 31st July, 1996.

2.1.11 From this it follows that if the cause is based on the premise that the respondent company is a shareholder and its complaint qua shareholder is that allegedly the necessary notice to all the shareholders was not given in terms of Article 6 subsection one of the Articles of Association of MEHL, that right does not belong to the respondent company, because the respondent company was not a shareholder and thus has no juridical interest in the cause.

2.1.13 That essentially the First Court in the judgement appealed in the humble opinion of the interpellant, mistakenly gave retrospective effect to the status of a shareholder and instead of following that provided by the Law of Companies and the Memorandum of MEHL itself, it considered that a person is a shareholder from when a transfer is made and not when it is approved by the Board and registered in the Register of the Company as a member.

2.1.15 For these reasons this grievance merits to be upheld.

2.2. The Second Grievance - Res Judicata

2.21 That the interpellant by means of the fourth, fifth and sixth pleas of their sworn reply pleaded, invoked the plea of res judicata and this because the merit of this cause already formed part and was decided in three separate causes.

… omissis …

2.23 That as stated by the First Court in the judgement appealed it is now an established principle that in order that the plea of res judicata succeed', 'there have to exist three requisites, identity of the persons, identity of the object and identity of the cause'.

… omissis …

2.27 The interpellants shall pass to consider in detail the judgements cited by them in the light of the necessary requisites in order to succesfully invoke the res judicata.

… omissis …

2.2.8.1. That as regards the Eadem Res, the Court of First Instance in the judgement appealed considered that the demands and the merit of the two causes are different as it relied on the fact that the demand in that cause was so that Martone be declared to be a shareholder of 9212 shares in the company MEHL and every claim of the defendants Pace regarding the property of these shres had to be declared unfounded. As regards the identity of the object of the cause jurisprudence developed the principle later on explained and namely it was affirmed that there is room for the plea of res judicata even when the merit of the cause although distinct from that of the prior cause forms part of the same thing if the point in controversy is the same.

… omissis …

That from an examination of the decision given in the records of the cause number 1707/93 it results that the present instance is being made between the same persons.

… omissis …

2.2.12 The Court of First Instance in its appealed judgement emphasised that no examination was made of the transfer of one share in the judgement 1707/93. This assertion however ignores the fact that an examination of the transfer of one share which Martone acquired from Zammit had necessarily to be made, so that the Court in the judgement 1707/93 could uphold the first demand of the plaintiff in the sense that Martone be declared the sole shareholder owner of the shares in the company MEHL, the second demand that every claim of the siblings Pace and of the company M.I.D.C. (present respondent) on the matter was declared unfounded.

… omissis …

2.2.20 Essentially thus despite that in the causes 1202/2007, the Court did not decide on the merit, decided in a definitive manner that the merit of that cause is an identical merit to that of number 1707/1993 and thus the Court in the judgement appealed had necessarily to conclude in the same manner that that Court decided in the causes 1202/2007 by upholding in the present cause a plea of res judicata on the basis of the causes 1707/1993 whereby the company MIDC Ltd was declared unequivocally that it had no further claim as regards the shares merit of the cause.

2.2.21 This decision became res judicata and the action as proposed has as an effect to destroy or restrict the effect of the judgement mentioned. This is inadmissible and unheard of because it constitutes an abuse of the legal system.

… omissis …

2.2.23 The definitive judgement with number 146/1989 is a proof in itself that the plea of res judicata based on the judgment given in the cause with number 1707/1993 had to be upheld by the Court of First Instance.

2.24 Thus that judgement 146/1989, like that of 1707/1993 did not have solely as a contestation the transfer of 9211 shares that Martone acquired from Ghidoli and Delle Piane but there was also pleaded and decided the transfer between J. Zammit and Michele Martone.

Conclusion

Thus in the light of the facts above brought forward the interpellant whilst referring to the proof gathered and reserve to bring forward the proof admissible according to law pray that this Honourable Court uphold this appeal and revoke, cancel and annul the partial judgement given by the First Hall of the Civil Court, in the names premised of the 30th January, 2018, by whilst upholding preliminary pleas merit of this appeal reject the plaintiff's demands with costs of both instances.

Notify Respondent: 35, Triq il-Magna tas-Serrar, Msida

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Republic of Malta

To the Executive Officer (Courts of Magistrates) Gozo

It is hereby notified that by a decree dated the 3rd September, 2019, the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Superior Jurisdiction, Voluntary Section, ordered the publication of the extract reproduced hereunder for the purpose of service in terms of sections 187(3) and 931(3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure.

Whereas by a decree dated the 3rd September, 2019, in the records of the application number 92/2019BS by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, Voluntary Section upon an application filed by John Buttigieg, holder of identity card number 38262G and in the names of other vendors as listed in the promise of sale dated thirty-first (31st) of August of the year two thousand and eighteen (2018) and Daniel Aquilina and his wife Dr Martina Aquilina, holders of identiy card number 485087M and 312887M of Ta' Sargina, Triq il-Ħuttaf, Kappara, San Ġwann as to the share of ¾ and of Mario Falzon and his wife Pauline Falzon holders of identity card numbers 783059M and 560460M of 12, Triq l-Eġew, San Ġwann, Malta as to the share of ¼ undivided part, as purchasers in the said shares, so that said curator would represent the uncertain heirs of the said Louis Galea and those of the said Maria Galea (whose married surname of Louis) filed on the 26th August, 2019, in the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, Voluntary Section, in the mentioned record as well as the other related and subsequent acts. They respectfully premised:

That while the notary engaged by the purchasers was doing the final verifications and the final searches, it resulted that one of the owners of the house numbered  fourteen (14) in Triq Santu Pietru, Għarb, Gozo, with its annexed garden, and namely Francis Galea who died on the 21st February, 1978, had another child apart from the two who appeared on the promise of sale agreement and namely Rosa, a spinster, and Joseph, siblings Galea;

That this other child was called Maria Galea and although it is known that she was married abroad and probably her married surname was Louis they do not know whether she had any children. All they know is that she died in a traffic accident abroad around thirty (30) years ago, and other details they do not have;

That therefore this Maria Galea (her married surname being Louis) also has a share out of these premises and it is necessary that as with the case of the others which were put forward in the previous application, a deputy curator be nominated for her uncertain heirs and this because she has a share of 1/3 of 1/18.

That therefore there is the need for the curator that is going to be appointed to represent the inheritance of Louis Galea and the inheritance of Joseph Galea, be nominated also to appear for the inheritance of the said Maria Galea (whose married surname is Louis);

Wherefore the applicants are respectfully requesting this Honourable Court to:

i. Appoint the same deputy curator to represent the uncertain heirs of the said Maria Galea (whose married surname of Louis);

ii. Authorise the said deputy curator to appear as a deputy curator for the uncertain heirs of Maria Galea (whose married surname is Louis) on the deed of sale by Daniel Aquilina and his wife Dr Martina Aquilina as to the undivided share of ¾ and by Mario Falzon and his wife Pauline Falzon as to the undivided share of ¼ of the premises numbered fourteen (14) in Triq Santu Pietru, Għarb, Gozo;

iii. Authorise the said deputy curator so that from the proceeds of such sale he deducts all the relative tax due by the uncertain heirs of Maria Galea (whose married surname is Louis) and to deposit the remaining balance – from which are to be deducted the expenses of this present, the fee due to the said deputy curator and other legitimate expenses which the said deputy curator would have incurred, in a bank account or with some other financial institution as this Honourable Court would direct.

Whoever is interested to be nominated as a curator is hereby called upon to call at this Registry within six (6) days and make known their interest through a note declaring therein that they accept such an assignment, and in default, this court will proceed to nominate an official curator.

And after so acting or if you should encounter any difficulty in the execution of this bann, you are to inform forthwith this Court.

Issued by the aforementioned Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Superior Jurisdiction, Voluntary Section under the signature of Magistrate Dr Brigitte Sultana LLD, LLM (Cardiff) Adv. Trib. Eccl. Melit.  a Magistrate of the said Court.

DORIANNE CORDINA

For the Registrar, Gozo Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the Civil Court (Family Section) on the 30th July, 2019, in the records of the Sworn Application in the names Borg Anisia (ID 251980M) vs Bellazi Aħmed (ID 200752A), Sworn Application Number 128/2019 AGV, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Ahmed Bellazi (ID 200752) in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of a Sworn Application, filed in the Civil Court (Family Section) in the names Anisia Borg (ID 251980M) vs Ahmed Bellazi (ID 200752A) on the 24th May, 2019, the applicant Anisia Borg (ID 251980M) asked this Honourable Court:

1. To pronounce the personal separation between the parties for reasons imputable to the defendant and uphold the other demands in the application.

With costs against the defendant from now summoned so that a reference to his evidence be made.

The Sworn Application in the names Borg Anisia vs Bellazi Ahmed, Application Number 128/2019 AGV, has been put off for hearing to Thursday, 3rd October, 2019, at 9.30 a.m.

Notify respondent: Demar, 11, Triq ir-Rebħa, Rabat

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals